Renewable power’s green vs. green battles continue

The Obama administration is hoping to put a stop to an increasing problem for wind and solar power — feuds with environmental groups that say the projects threaten endangered species or valuable habitat.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The irony, of course, is that environmentalists are generally big fans of renewable energy, especially compared with greenhouse gas-spewing fossil fuels like coal.

The Interior Department has looked for ways to avoid these green-vs.-green conflicts both by trying to expedite environmental reviews for large solar projects and by creating voluntary guidelines to prevent wind turbines from killing birds.

In one effort, the department set up 17 so-called solar energy zones last year in several Western states that it calls prime locations for utility-scale solar installations. Interior declared the zones free of major conflicts on endangered species, sensitive ecosystems or cultural resources, allowing projects there to skip the initial environmental reviews that take a broad look at regional concerns.

Projects in the zones will still have to conduct site-specific environmental reviews, but Interior’s plan could save solar developers millions of dollars in permitting costs.

But that didn’t soothe all the projects’ critics. David Myers, executive director of the California-based Wildlands Conservancy, says the zones were watered down by adding so-called variance zones, where solar developers can site big projects but haven’t been pre-cleared by Interior.

“The whole goal of the solar energy zones was defeated by variance,” said Myers, whose group has gone to court against several big solar projects on California public land. “The whole object of the solar energy zones was to shepherd these projects into areas with the least amount of conflicts. But then at the ninth hour, they added over 20 million acres of variance that are open for solar prospecting.”

The zones have also drawn skepticism from some in the industry who say the savings offered by waiving the initial surveys might not outweigh the costs of complying with the regulations on federal lands.

The Interior Department did not respond to a request for comment before press time.

The Solar Energy Industries Association says it knows of at least two applications being made for projects within zones in Colorado plus one within a zone-like area in Arizona.

It’s still too soon to tell whether the zones will help boost solar power in a way that satisfies conservationists, observers say. And Myers said the “solar gold rush” has waned somewhat, adding that it was driven largely by the unprecedented federal support — both financial and political — the industry received during President Barack Obama’s first term.

“I think there was just an environment-be-damned philosophy by the administration to get some initial projects on track, and they’ve got those initial projects on track,” Myers said.

Interior also finished voluntary guidelines in March 2012 that it says will greatly reduce the risk of bird and bat deaths in wind turbines. Birds have fallen victim to wind projects across the country, although the industry says modern projects have greatly lessened the problem by using slow-spinning blades and designs that discourage nesting.

The guidelines are not a get-out-of-jail-free card, Interior officials said, but could help convince a judge that developers considered avian concerns when siting a project.

Early signs are good that the guidelines will effectively help developers, said John Anderson, director of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association.

“The guidelines themselves have helped with people identifying problematic areas and staying away from them, as well as addressing issues that develop on-site,” Anderson said. “Every indication is they are working; people are using them; the consultations with the service have increased; and there’s been a lot of collaboration between the industry and the conservation community.”